[The Immortal Goon]

A lot of the Mexicans girls around here will fuck you for pizza and a Coke.

—Edit—

I didn’t see my forum stalker cowardly failed to alert my attention to his mention.

Immortal Goon would even have us believe he's the Casanova of Muslim women.

It says something that years later, you have a clenched fist and teary eyes over something I mentioned in a totally different context.

And it says something about rightwingers’ version of being “a Casanova” is being getting laid a couple of times.

I believe my point, when I said that, was that Muslims are people like anyone else. And that your idea that they are magical creatures with magical norms relating to the hive mind are woefully misguided.

If a girl is willing to sleep with me, I eternally appreciate her (hopefully she internally appreciates me—HEY-O!). It seems to me that usually this comes up when some righty says, “X type of woman does Y,” or—in one notable case regarding a certain Russian with a nice couch—“how do you not rape a woman on accident?”

Or even, more recently, “if you like girls with shorn legs, why are you okay with women being allowed not to shorn their legs?”

The answer to all of this is to say that people are people. Nobody’s part of a hive mind, nobody is magic, people like what they like, and it’s not everybody else’s job to please you sexually.

I am now bald, getting older, and certain things come with that. If I have any game at all it’s engaging people as people.

(Actually If he was really was using his position of authority within academia to bed multiple real practising Muslim women as opposed to identity Muslims, I really would be impressed, but somehow i doubt it.)

Somehow you doubt that I’m raping my students. Thank you for that.

The fact that you’d respect me more if I were raping Muslim girls really makes one wonder why nobody has accused you of being a Casanova of any kind.

[Rich]

Somehow you doubt that I’m raping my students. Thank you for that.

The fact that you’d respect me more if I were raping Muslim girls really makes one wonder why nobody has accused you of being a Casanova of any kind.

I never said anything about raping. Dear Oh dear. I said I was proud of our western society. The torrent of allegations is a very positive sign as it indicates women are far more empowered and the power imbalances within our societies have been severely moderated. You still seem to have me confused with a Conservative. I'm a British Republican, I'm so anti Monarchy that I'd probably vote Sinn Fein if they ever stood in my constituency. I'm very happy to see both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church diminished.

The large majority of Women are attracted to male power, but that power comes in many flavours, the businessman, the mainstream politician, the far left leader, the rock star, the Guru, the indie musician, the psychotherapist, the Footballer, the Athlete the Academic and many others.

For a non Catholic to get off with a mass attending catholic women is not that hard. Bedding women who regularly attend Mosques is hard. That's why I said I'd be impressed, even if you were using your pulling power as a history lecturer. I'm not jealous of you, I'm pissed at religious communities that manage to monopolise their own women while getting women form outside their religion, whether its Muslims, Mormons ,some wierdo cult or Medieval Jews who locked their women in their ghettos while they were free to roam the streets preying on Gentile women.

[Sivad]

womens' feelings are regularly ignored in favour of male pleasure. That's what women are talking about with the Aziz story; men need to consider the women they're trying to fuck as people rather than objects to get off to, their wants should be considered too and that includes not pressuring them into things they appear reluctant about.

Real shit. Many men just push for acquiescence and aren't interested in whether the woman is into it or not.

[The Immortal Goon]

:lol: I never said anything about raping. Dear Oh dear. I said I was proud of our western society.

You said:

Actually if he was really was using his position of authority within academia to bed ultiple real practicing Muslim women as opposed to identity Muslims, I really would be impressed, but somehow I doubt it.

Using my position of authority to bed a woman, any woman, would be rape. I would, rightfully, be terminated and probably prosecuted for withholding good grades or only accepting work that came with sexual favours. It would be forcing someone that didn't want to have sex into a position to forced sex, same as if I got her too drunk to consent, same as if put something in her drink to have her pass out.

[Drlee]

The large majority of Women are attracted to male power, but that power comes in many flavours, the businessman, the mainstream politician, the far left leader, the rock star, the Guru, the indie musician, the psychotherapist, the Footballer, the Athlete the Academic and many others.

I am not so sure this is on the mark. I think it is much more complicated than that. Here is what I mean in no particular order.

First, we (men) do not pay attention to what "women" want. We pay attention to what women we want appear to do. So the prettiest cheerleader in the class appears to be attracted to the quarterback of the football team.

Women go out with men who ask them out. The mousy guy on the chess club never asks the cheerleader. She is the quarterback's property after all. Right? I was single for a very long time and over the years dated a number of beautiful women and was friends with even more. I don't know how often I heard a beautiful girl mention that she "never" got asked out. Beauty is intimidating to many men if not all of them. The stakes are higher. Right?

Successful people, men and women, tend to be confident. That nerd with his glasses taped together all of a sudden is a confident man once he makes his first million writing an ap, or graduating from med school, or some other measure of success. He sees himself as a "catch" because he is bringing something to the table.

It is perfectly reasonable for women to prefer successful men. It is wise to do that. Throughout history successful men had the luxury of being allowed to select their spouses for beauty. Or if they are paired for some familial/political advantage, keep a chippie on the side. Women on the other hand have always had to consider the welfare of their children and themselves. Only fairly recently did women really have much chance of a good career and children can disrupt that pretty effectively. Women still earn less than men. So this is not a change. What is a change, is that men now are drawn to successful women if they can get over being intimidated by them. A male doctor marrying a doctor acquires wealth and the freedom to understand that his own wealth will not be diluted should the wheels come off of the marriage.

Back to power relationships. Clearly men have used their influence with women for sexual favors forever. It is becoming dangerous to do that and that is a good thing. It is good for men and it is good for women. It is obvious why it is good for women. It is good for men because they are more likely to find a real match and not accept some woman's surrender. It is good for their female children too but few men articulate that.

A bunch of young people who can't even get married or have kids because they don't own land, have crushing student loan debt and even with their college degree can't get a job that pays more than $12 dollars an hour. In some expensive ass state like mine, or New York. Lol. That is opression Rich.

So there it is, right? The above in a nutshell. Poverty changes the power dynamic on both men and women. It is not romantic to eat dorm food and take the bus. It is romantic to go to France for the Beaujolais nouveau release and put the top down in your Porsche. Wealth empowers men and women. Or one could better say that the possession of personal wealth, empowers men and liberates women. It gives both choices that others do not have. Wealth gives men access to women they would love to love and it empowers women to love for love.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is the #Metoo movement a pretext for women to take power and money away from men?

Possibly, but it is defintely a pretext to destroy masculinity in any traditional sense and take all of the fun out of life:

No. This statement of yours only makes sense if you define “traditional masculinity and fun” as “sexual harassment and sexual assault”, which most people do not.

For example, building and repairing stuff is considered to be traditionally masculine and yet the MeToo movement says nothing about it.

It seems that you are constructing a victim narrative where you are the victim and we are all supposed to feel sorry for you and how oppressed you are by women and male feminists.

By the way, telling everyone how the male feminists and women are beating you on a political level is not traditionally masculine either.

From the Article entitled:

Time's up for James Bond: is 007 too toxic for the #MeToo era?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/j ... me-too-era

Do you consider criticism of movies to be part of an oppressive conspiracy by progresives and feminists to destroy traditional masculinity?

That seems like paranoia.

[Tainari88]

I am not so sure this is on the mark. I think it is much more complicated than that. Here is what I mean in no particular order.

First, we (men) do not pay attention to what "women" want. We pay attention to what women we want appear to do. So the prettiest cheerleader in the class appears to be attracted to the quarterback of the football team.

Women go out with men who ask them out. The mousy guy on the chess club never asks the cheerleader. She is the quarterback's property after all. Right? I was single for a very long time and over the years dated a number of beautiful women and was friends with even more. I don't know how often I heard a beautiful girl mention that she "never" got asked out. Beauty is intimidating to many men if not all of them. The stakes are higher. Right?

Successful people, men and women, tend to be confident. That nerd with his glasses taped together all of a sudden is a confident man once he makes his first million writing an ap, or graduating from med school, or some other measure of success. He sees himself as a "catch" because he is bringing something to the table.

It is perfectly reasonable for women to prefer successful men. It is wise to do that. Throughout history successful men had the luxury of being allowed to select their spouses for beauty. Or if they are paired for some familial/political advantage, keep a chippie on the side. Women on the other hand have always had to consider the welfare of their children and themselves. Only fairly recently did women really have much chance of a good career and children can disrupt that pretty effectively. Women still earn less than men. So this is not a change. What is a change, is that men now are drawn to successful women if they can get over being intimidated by them. A male doctor marrying a doctor acquires wealth and the freedom to understand that his own wealth will not be diluted should the wheels come off of the marriage.

Back to power relationships. Clearly men have used their influence with women for sexual favors forever. It is becoming dangerous to do that and that is a good thing. It is good for men and it is good for women. It is obvious why it is good for women. It is good for men because they are more likely to find a real match and not accept some woman's surrender. It is good for their female children too but few men articulate that.



So there it is, right? The above in a nutshell. Poverty changes the power dynamic on both men and women. It is not romantic to eat dorm food and take the bus. It is romantic to go to France for the Beaujolais nouveau release and put the top down in your Porsche. Wealth empowers men and women. Or one could better say that the possession of personal wealth, empowers men and liberates women. It gives both choices that others do not have. Wealth gives men access to women they would love to love and it empowers women to love for love.

Traditional roles @Drlee are definitely changing. That is true.

I did an edit and adding this in after thinking about your last paragraph there. Those are your values Drlee. Not mine. Why do poor and very beautiful women marry poor guys? They guy is never going to be rich. You know, the Latina housewives I know? The very prettiest of the bunch? Were married to the least good looking, and very very poor men....but they all had something in common....they LOVED that man. I am thinking of at least 4 of them who were the loveliest looking women. Who were extremely beautiful. Their husbands? Short, bald, not good looking and on top of that? Had not two nickels to rub together. Yet, all of them would tell me, "Antonio is such a fine father, and he is a great husband, and he is a fine man." They loved their husbands. Undocumented, under the pressure cooker husbands, making very low salaries and the women had to scrape and save every penny and clip every coupon to make ends meet. I am sure they could have married an "El Chapo" drug dealer, or could have married some better looking more well heeled man, because they were very beautiful women. But they did not. They grew up with fathers, brothers and so on who were poor too....and that is not something the impeded them from being in love. Poor people rarely marry outside of their socioeconomic class. And they accept that they won't be rich folk. That entire idea of marrying for money? It might be a class based problem of people who value wealth as the key to happiness. It has not been my experience in Latin America Drlee. I did not marry a rich man. I married a 23 year old totally broke young man....with no money. Did not speak English, grew up in a public housing project, and had nothing of 'prestige'. Some other guy tried to date me...a very wealthy dude from a very powerful family with loads of money.....I did not like who that guy was. Did nothing for me. So? Told him a straight "No."

The one I chose, was a man who loved art, music, poetry, was an original thinker, fine conversationalist, and had an excellent heart, and a very intelligent mind, and also? Great values and great manners. A lot of charm. And no money, and no possessions. I did not think that was necessary. And I chose correctly.

I also think the pressures of both parents working outside the home to pay the bills is detrimental to family life.

I enjoy staying home in my life. I like the idea of just staying home. Apparently that is what most people who know me would like for me to do....because, in traditional homes, women were always there making things pleasant for men. When I was in Mexico, it is a very traditional society. Few women work outside of the home. Their family lives revolve around the family. Mother's Day is huge in Mexico.

But, I have a fine opportunity to go and work outside the house and to do something interesting on my own...with my own interests. So I do so. It is great. It is sad if I had to choose between not caring for my little boy and my career. I would choose my little boy in a heartbeat. And a career where I did not have to work for anyone else but myself. That is true freedom.

I just feel people should fall in love for the right reasons....and not about financial security and or stability only. That is important for all people....but not a good reason in my book, for marrying a fiancee.

One should be in love and living without them is like not living and not being able to breathe air. That sort of 'entrega'. Not any of this dry calculation Drlee.

Men in my honest opinion? They are a bit scared of women....of being rejected, found wanting in bed, found not quite the best providers, or that they are denied that sweet respect and admiration that women have for a man they are in love with.

Women in my experience Drlee, are the heart of hearts of men. That is where they find emotional fulfillment and true acceptance. You deny them that? Not happy men they are. The straight ones at least. Gay men find love with other men.

Why a man would want any old woman with any old attitude and find that acceptable? I don't even understand that shit at all.....I am a woman in that way. Trying to understand how a 'taco placero' is good enough? Lol.

It is a sad state of affairs when men and women are accepting really unfulfilling relationships because they have little hope there is anything out there that is better than that.

Love of the best kind ? It is the most gorgeous, beautiful, sublime, divine, great and sweet thing to experience on Earth. It is the reason for being born. If you don't believe in that? It is entirely because you don't seek it and are totally unwilling to give it.

Amor is the loveliest thing in the world. Sex can be with love or without love. Without love? It is like a taco placero. With love? Ambrosia. Food from the Gods. Asi es.

I wonder about your love life Drlee.....you don't strike me as a man without charm.

[Rich]

Using my position of authority to bed a woman, any woman, would be rape. I would, rightfully, be terminated and probably prosecuted for withholding good grades or only accepting work that came with sexual favours. It would be forcing someone that didn't want to have sex into a position to forced sex, same as if I got her too drunk to consent, same as if put something in her drink to have her pass out.

It didn't occur to me that my words would be interpreted that way. I meant benefiting from the magnetism of being a Marxist history lecturer. Not engaging in bribery, black mail and fraud. As I said most women are attracted to power, but that power comes in widely divergent flavours. Some women go for Bill Gates, some women go for Kurt Kobain. Being seen as an intellectual is also flavour of power that a large segment of women are attracted to.

I have observed the power effect countless times both with other men and myself. in fact there's a little game I like to play with women. I'm often in an environment where I have some level of status / power. Nothing major but you don't much power / status to observe the power effect. When I meet women I allow them to come to the mistaken impression that I'm a nobody in this particular set up. I then observe them scrabbling to readjust when they find out I'm not a nobody. the key point is not whether these modest positions of power are important to my self identity, generally I'm quite indifferent to them, but their effect on women.

The women and power thing goes on just as much at the local anarchist or Green peace meeting as it does in the offices of our top corporations. The great feminist struggle is not so much a struggle between men and women as a struggle between women and an internal struggle inside individual women. Harvey Weinstein is to some extent not typical. He is pretty gross physically, so he has to use his power in a very crude and probably illegal way. Most men can benefit from their positions of authority without having to resort to his crude, repulsive and illegal methods.

it seems to me there are broad (and contradictory) strategies for "success" with women. "Playing it cool" and "Persistence". I'm indisputably disposed to the former. I commonly enter into sexual relationships years after first meeting. That just wouldn't suit most guys. I recognise that for most guys if they want to get sex with a lot of women the persistence verging on harassment is the way to go. I'm not saying that men should want to have sex lots of women. I'm not saying that its moral or caring to have sex with lots of women. I'm just saying that for most men persistence is the route to go down if they do. I write merely as a counsellor / life coach helping young men to achieve their goals and dreams.

I was particularly struck by an incident decades back. I was in a bar in Amsterdam chatting to a South African guy I'd run into. There was a group of three young women. Three men entered and the two of us observed their attempt to chat the women up. These women were not interested. Absolutely not interested. I mean really not interested and clearly some what irritated by these men's intrusion their private conversation. But these guys just refused to take the hint. they just went on and on forcing these women to talk them. Then gradually bit by bit they started to get a foothold. An hour later when me and the South African left the bar, the guys were now socialising with these three women like they were life long friends. They were well on the way to getting laid.

Persistence- harassment with women works. Women continually over and over and over again "reward men" for persistence and harassment. Over and over again women "reward" men for disrespecting their boundaries. Over and over again women "reward" men for emotional manipulation. I'm waiting for society to start giving women some responsibility for the culture of which they so clearly co creators along with men.

[colliric]

Wow. They finally turned on him as soon as he went from Trump to a woman... Lol.

[QatzelOk]

I can't wait until Oprah is elected president. When that happens, all our threads on PoFo will be like this one.

"Incest victims confront their family sex partners!"

"While he was away, she was sleeping with his brother!"

"Men who go to work in drag... under their three-piece suits!"

"How can I stop my neighbor's cat from peeing in my garden?!"

By electing popstars, we can avoid talking about depressing subjects like economic bankruptcy, failed capitalist democracy, pollution-caused extinctions, and school shootings, and really concentrate on those small local things that make really great suburban television entertainment.

OPRAH 2020; stick it to the man (and men)!

[Suntzu]

Then wouldn't Jerry Springer be better?

[QatzelOk]

Unfortunately for Jerry, his work as an Identity-Politics guru has made white men like himself unelectable unless they agree to play a fascist on TV for the Federal Reserve.

The Fed (via the scripts appearing on the presidential teleprompter) would probably depict Oprah as a wise, monarch-like strong-lady with ghetto street-smarts. This would be easier to market in the present television cultural environment that is suburbia-on-the-edge-of-societal-collapse.

Meanwhile, MeToo provides an instant voter base for any woman who can play 'repressed female' on TV.

[colliric]

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mov ... 0uzvd.html

Yeah I had the same reaction as Alex and 2003 Howard Stern did....

QT may make good movies(very occasionally) but gosh his views on things are really sleazy sometimes....

[skinster]

Tarantino is gross. Especially the bits in Uma Thurman's story of him going to the effort of spitting on her face himself during filming (something unexpected for a director).

[colliric]

Howard Stern telling you how sleazy you sound is like the bottom of the barrel telling the barrel stacked underneath it how bad it sounds.....

Lol.

Also, MSM Australia(SMH is a Murdoch paper) used the Infowars video in their article. Half way down.

[skinster]

Howard Stern telling you how sleazy you sound is like the bottom of the barrel telling the barrel stacked underneath it how bad it sounds.....

Howard Stern is a gross pig too, the way he would speak to women on his show...granted, they were porn stars or whatever, but still....he's gross, and an extreme-right zionist.

[maz]

:D

Howard Stern is a gross pig too, the way he would speak to women on his show...granted, they were porn stars or whatever, but still....he's gross, and an extreme-right zionist.

The Howard Stern show is a microcosm of the entire MeToo phenomenon.

It shows the depravity of a good number of women who will do anything to further their careers or simply to get publicity for whatever reason; whether it was a game show where a sister and brother would have to fondle each others genitals if they lost a game, a woman having sex with the fat slob winner of some random contest or one of the mentally ill show characters, or a woman sticking a pole in her butt and playing ring toss with listeners.

If Howard Stern is a gross pig, then what does that make the women who willing agree to appear on his show?

[skinster]

The Howard Stern show is a microcosm of the entire MeToo phenomenon.

No.

[colliric]

.
If Howard Stern is a gross pig, then what does that make the women who willing agree to appear on his show?

I think the more important question is, if Howard Stern is a gross pig, and even he knows Roman Polanski is a sick pervert, then what does that make people who don't believe Roman Polanski is sick pervert that raped a child?

[maz]

I think the more important question is, if Howard Stern is a gross pig, and even he knows Roman Polanski is a sick pervert, then what does that make people who don't believe Roman Polanski is sick pervert that raped a child?

Well you've got a point and yes, I only came back in after I read skinster's last comment. That's for pulling me back into the correct context of the conversation, although I still think that the Stern show is an obvious indictment on women in general.

Howard Stern has always talked very poorly of Whoopie Goldberg who once famously claimed that Polanksi's crime wasn't really "rape rape."